reopen_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description directly explains the behavioral effect: transitioning a task from completed back to needing action. Annotations already cover non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, and the description adds the key semantic detail without contradicting those annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action is immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter mutating tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. No output schema exists, but the operation is simple enough that return-value details are not essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described with source hints ('obtain it from list_tasks'). The description adds one important piece of semantic context beyond the schema: the target task must be completed. This helps the agent understand which task_id is valid for this operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a completed task') plus the intended outcome ('needing action again'). It clearly conveys the state transition and is easily distinguished from the sibling tool complete_task, which performs the reverse operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when a task is completed and should be brought back into an actionable state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'completed task' prerequisite is strong enough guidance for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.